CCSU Faculty Senate


February 13, 2012

VAC 105

3:05 PM

The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is on Monday 2/27/12 in Vance 105 at 3:05.

Note: Senate Constitution, Bylaws, Meeting Dates, Agenda and Minutes are posted on the CCSU Pipeline under Faculty Resources/Faculty Senate, or at


Alewitz. M., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Bigelow, L., Braverman, S., Bunce, P., Calvert, J., Cappella, D., Cohen, S., Corbitt, T., Delventhal, T., Diamond, C. , Dukes, C. , Durant, M., Dziuda, D., Foster, P., Fothergill, W., Garcia-Bowen, M., Godway, E., Greenfield, B., Hoopengardner, B., Hou, X., Jones, C., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F. , Mahony, M., Mejia, G., Menoche, C., Mijid, N., Mione, T., Morano, P., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Pancsofar, E., Peer, N., Petkova, O., Pickering, R., Poirier, K., Pope, C., Ratansi, S., Reasco, A., Sadanand, N., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Shell, G., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Vogeler, R., White, C., Wlodarska K., Wolff, R., Wood, R.

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C

Ex-Officio: Lemma, P., Pease, S., Sakofs, M.

Guests: Bergenn, E., Hicks, E., Jones, J., Tordenti, L.

The Steering Committee recommended that two items be placed on the Consent Agenda. Items accepted onto the consent agenda are approved without discussion or vote. Items for the Consent Agenda were Minutes for 1/23/12 (Item 1) and bylaws revisions from the Committee on Committees (Item 3c)

President Barrington also proposed a new agenda item, 5b: Discussion of House Bill 5030 on General Education Reform and the BOR Transfer and Articulation Document. There is no item for vote. The motion to place this on the agenda was approved unanimously.

1. Approval of Minutes, January 23, 2012

Consent Agenda Item--Passed

2. Announcements

a. AAUP President (J. Jones)      

There will be a department liaison meeting on Wed 2/15 at Noon in the Mountain Laurel room.

There will be a chapter meeting on Tues 3/13. The meeting will cover questions on CCSU budgets and the financial relationship between CSU and CCSU budgets. We expect to pass a resolution on financial transparency.

Elections are upcoming to select delegates to the CSU-AAUP council. These are very important positions because the delegates will certainly be in communication with the BOR as well as other entities.

The topic of General Education Reform at the College and University level is suddenly very pressing. There is a Board of Regents hearing on General Education in March, and there is a legislative meeting tomorrow on the topic. We can’t grieve legislation. We can grieve some actions of the BOR. It is important to speak up on both of these plans. Additionally, Thursday is the day to testify on the bill which would make it impossible to force a student into remediation. Testifying takes about 3 minutes, and you must supply a written copy.

The AAUP position on Gen Ed reform is that it will be difficult to reject the BOR proposal outright, but it’s clearly not a plan that we favor. We need to work with the BOR and encourage them to think about shared governance.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)    

We are still grappling with issues that have emerged from the reorganization of higher education and the elimination of the system office. There are pay disparities and work hour disparities.

We are also advocating for an administrative FAC to the BOR.

We are also taking a look at how jobs are ranked in our bargaining unit and looking at what appears to be a system wide downgrading of positions in our bargaining unit.

c. SGA (E. Bergenn)     

Please see the new website for the SGA senate. That will be updated with our various resolutions and decisions.

d. FAC to Board of Regents (S. Adair)      

The Board of Regents (BOR) Proposed Transfer Policy affects all 17 colleges and universities to varying degrees. The BOR Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) is circulating the proposal and soliciting constructive comments and suggestions. While this is currently a working document, the BOR plans to make a decision on this policy on March 15, and a public hearing will be held on March 9 to hear comments.  The FAC will meet on March 2 to review faculty responses to the proposal.  Therefore, please provide specific feedback by February 24 regarding content and implementation of the proposal, identifying whether it is workable or not, and, if not, what alternatives you suggest. To assure an accurate summary of the feedback, please address your comments to me at

BOR Transfer Policy Document

e. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)    

This spring, there will be many positions to fill on several committees as well as the officers of the Senate.  A complete listing of anticipated vacancies will be available for our next meeting and posted on the Senate Web page.  Nominations will be sought between the end of February and the beginning of March, with the final ballot for committees ready by March 26th and results reported out on April 9th. Election of officers will take place on April 9th. Please begin thinking about which committee(s) you would like to serve on and encourage the members you represent to consider running for these important committees.

There’s been considerable concern about the current academic calendar. As it is currently set up, some days of the week have more class meetings per term than others. For instance, next spring, Monday and Friday classes will meet only 13 times, Thursday classes will meet 14 times, and Tuesday and Wednesday classes will meet 15 times. AAUP and the Senate leadership from the four CSUs will be working together to try to eliminate this disparity. If you have ideas how this can be achieved, please contact either Jason Jones or me.

A copy of the draft proposal from the Ad Hoc Committee for General Education Committee may be downloaded at For additional information about the Committee, contact Dr. Robert Wolff, Department of History (

The Senate Steering Committee will institute—on a trial basis—bi-monthly teaching and administrative faculty caucuses on non-Senate Mondays here in Vance 105.

    • These will be primarily for Senate members, but non-Senators may attend.
    • They will be an opportunity for Senators to ask questions about developing issues and to communicate concerns that are not readily addressed through our system of Senate committees.
    • Ideally, these caucuses would be feeders to the steering committee.
    • If we like the general set-up, then we can ask the Constitution and By-Laws Committee to incorporate them officially into the Senate’s routine.
    • Here’s a tentative schedule:
      • 30 January, Teaching Faculty
      • 6 February, Administrative Faculty
      • 5 March, Both
      • 2 April, Administrative Faculty
      • 16 April, Teaching Faculty
      • 7 May, Both?

I’d like to see these caucuses help us take advantage of the unique opportunity our Faculty Senate affords us. By bringing together teaching faculty, administrative faculty, coaches, counselors, and librarians, our Senate provides a wonderful forum for working together for common goals, which include developing ways to improve student learning and to make CCSU a wonderful place to work and learn.


We have dates for the semester’s two Presidential forums.

    1. 14 February, 3:05.  I’ve suggested to President Miller that our topic be Program/Department Consolidation and Elimination.  There's a lot of buzz/concern going around campus right now, and I think the university needs to hear more about it from Dr. Miller.
    2. The second forum will be on Wednesday, 18 April at 1:40. At that time, Sally Lesik and Carolyn Fallahi to present the 2nd half of their Gender and Equity Study.  

I’ll have locations for the forums by out next meeting

3. Reports

a. Curriculum Committee (FS 11.12.019B)

Passed Unanimously

b. Elections Committee--List of Committee Vacancies

c. Committee on Committees (bylaws revisions)

            Rationale for Revisions

            Library Committee (FS 11.12.020B)

            Mediation Committee (FS 11.12.021B)

            Termination Hearing Committee (FS 11.12.022B)

Consent Agenda Items--Passed

4. Unfinished Business

a. Academic Program Review (P. Lemma) (FS 11.12.023B)

      Changes made since the first APR Document in this latest iteration

      Version 17, dated 1-31-12

      NEASC documents that demonstrate our need to provide evidence of Program Review

      NEASC timeline for the 5th year report.

There was a discussion about the benefits and/or necessity of external review in this process. Several spoke in favor of it, and P. Lemma indicated that she considered it beneficial. Departments need not heed the advice of external reviewers, but the program review process is a good opportunity to get fresh eyes to look at a program and help evaluate it.

Will student input be part of this? It is not mandatory, but it can be included at the discretion of the department. Students can be made available, for example, to the external reviewer.

Every department will be on a 5 year cycle.

Departments will NOT have to complete assessment reports or annual reports during the year of program review. So hopefully this should not be too burdensome. It is a new item of work, but departments get a waiver on assessment reports and annual reports.

What are the criteria for selecting the departments for the first round? We needed departments who were well along in the assessment process, so we looked for departments with full assessment reports. So this was not a random selection.

The provost’s office pays for external reviewers. Funds for this process will not be diverted from department budgets.

Does NEASC pay attention to state legislative issues—the kind of things that can seriously impact our assessments and curricula (such as the House Bills we have discussed today). Yes, they are aware of such issues.

Senator Sarisley offered a motion to add the following language:

“Departments may include students during the external reviewer process.”

This would be in the paragraph at the top of the second page. Directly after the word “governance.”

Several people stated that student involvement was very important and informative for external reviewers, and others added that the present document doesn’t prohibit student involvement. Perhaps by including such language student involvement will be encouraged.

 The motion was amended by substitution to:

“Campus visits by External Reviewers shall include feedback from students enrolled in the program.”


Speaking in favor of this motion, some indicated that this change allows us to build student involvement into the process in whatever ways departments prefer.

Others stated that this now mandates an additional burden in a process that is likely to be very labor intensive.

Do we need to be more specific about what topics will require student input?


The amendment failed with 14 votes in favor and 27 against


A Motion was presented to add the following:

Under the review cycle #2, add a new bullet point (a second one), with the following language:

“An external reviewer may be included in a department’s review at the discretion of the department.”


At the end of final bullet point add the clause: “, if a department elects to include an external reviewer”


The amendment failed with 2 votes in favor and all else against.

The Program Review passed unanimously.


b. Report from UPBC and Guy Crundwell on athletic financial data

A motion to defer this item until the first meeting in March was approved unanimously.


5. New Business

a. Department Name Change—Psychological Science (FS 11.12.024B)

Passed with 2 opposed; all other votes in favor.

B. Discussion of HB 5030 and the BOR Transfer and Articulation proposal.

Steve Adair indicated the Board of Regents was influenced very much by a document from the Gates Foundation titled Implementing Statewide transfer and Articulation reform. This document explicitly implies that the Associates Degree path is the way to go—such a path supposedly being most efficient and cost effective.

The system office is already advertising the information in the Transfer and Articulation Proposal as policy.

Some points that were discussed:

Some asked why the CSU schools are being held to the CC standard rather than the other way around, especially since the CSU Gen Ed programs may well be more thorough. Moreover, with the Associates Degree path, the CSU schools are held accountable for the praxis scores and other metrics of students who haven’t been educated in the CSU system.

There are many pathways that have already been articulated—including the pathway to the Education major. What research has been done to say that the current articulations are insufficient?

Students tend to select Central because it is more user friendly for transfers. Will the current articulations already in place be null and void with the new program?

This proposed policy can adversely affect our accreditation processes on both department and university levels.

It will be very time intensive to upgrade our system in the registrar’s office. We don’t even have a common Gen Ed package for the 4 CSU schools, much less for all the CCs  and Charter Oak.

If the BOR can’t pay to bring some schools up to a higher standard—the other schools will have to move down. This is a least common denominator idea. This also violates the unique mission identity of the different schools.

The variance in sister departments (in terms of size and the design of the majors) across the 4 schools varies drastically. A one-size-fits-all proposal, such as this one, is utterly inappropriate in this context.

The key is not to seek a common core, but clear articulations about transfer credits.

6. Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 pm.